|
|
|
Topics
Backgrounder: THE SIZE OF THE U.S. MILITARY BUDGET
Some call it the Iron Triangle - the combination of Military Contractors, Pentagon Officials and Congress - that collectively set the defense budget. President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld have, like others before them, discovered these three forces to be intractable, despite the Administration's concerted efforts to "transform" the military into a more mobile, agile organization.
As the 2004 budget gets ready for submission, the New York Times (December 22, 2003) reported that six of the seven major weapons systems that the Administration has questioned will find their way into the $378 billion dollar request to be submitted to congress.
The triangle, another word for the Military - Industrial Complex works this way. Large defense companies like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northup Grumman and others hire lots of lobbyists, many of them former members of Congress. Over the last year and one half defense contractors are said to have spent 90 million for lobbying purposes. These same companies also provide senior executives to fill civilian policy positions in the Pentagon.
The Military Services define and vigorously advocate the new weapons that they want, and they work not just with their civilian bosses in the Pentagon but directly with the defense companies, and especially with members of congress. Congressional representatives in turn fight for their share of the military pie in order to protect and promote jobs. Never mind that the money could be spent on far more productive jobs, Congress fights for current defense companies and their employees. It should be no surprise that many of the large weapon systems have sub-contractors in states across the country.
The 2003 Military Budget was also huge. The War Resisters League estimates that $437 billion dollars go to current military activity including the Defense Department ($379 billion), nuclear weapons in the Department of Energy ($16.8 billion) and others. Current military programs constitute 26 per cent of the national 1.696 Billion budget. An additional 20 percent ($339 Billion) goes to past military expenditures, especially veterans benefits ($57 Billion) and interest on national debt, as much of 80 percent of which ($282 Billion) can be attributed to previous military spending.
If one considers so-called discretionary money in the budget, as opposed to mandatory expenses supported by the trust funds for Social Security, Medicare and related entitlement programs, then defense funds constitute around half of the budget.
Another way to look at the size is in comparison with other countries. The Center for Defence Information has compiled estimates for Russia ($60 Billion), China ($42 Billion), Japan ($40.4 Billion), United Kingdom ($34 Billion), Saudia Arabia ($27.2 Billion) and many more. Do we really need to spend more than all these other countries combined?
Do we really need:
* F/A 22 raptor fighters. Originally designed to counter a soviet plane that was never built, these planes will cost 200 million each, or up to 64 billion dollars for 203 over the next decade, and 100 more in the following decade.
* Another Aircraft carrier. Guess what an aircraft carrier costs.
* Stryker combat vehicles. The army want 2100, enough for 6 brigades. Reportedly Secretary of Defense wanted funding for only 3 brigades.
* V-22 Ospreys. This combination helicopter/plane has repeatedly crashed, and involved falsified maintenance records. The total bill is $46 billion.
* Comanche helicopters. This program is said to cost $48 billion. The army wants 1200 at 40 million dollars each.
Congratulations to Secretary Rumsfeld. The Iron Triangle does not win them all. Arguing that the Crusader artillery system was too heavy at 40 tons, this 10 year old, 11 billion dollar initiative was cancelled during 2002.
Backgrounder: THE ROLE OF BOEING AND OTHER ST. LOUIS COMPANIES
The years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war were hard on the defense industry. One after another, including McDonell Douglas, were sold, merged or closed. However, among the survivors, was Boeing. Times are not good for Boeing on the civilian side of the business, but despite the loss of the $300 million Joint Strike Fighter contract to Lockheed Martin, the surge of interest in military spending has kept Boeing busy.
In 2002, the Military Space and Aircraft Divisions were merged with headquarters in St. Louis. Now with 15,000 employees devoted to building a wide array of weapons, Boeing is evidence of the power of the Military-Industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about almost 50 years ago. Here are some of the weapons they build.
* Joint Direct Attack Missiles (JDAMs). These are conventional bombs that are transformed into satellite guided smart bombs with the attachment of a $20,000 guidance kit. The New York Times (December 1, 2002) reports that 2000 kits are produced a month, a rate that is expected to increase to 2,800 kits monthly by next summer. Around 7,000 of these precision bombs were used in Afghanistan, almost 5000 from Boeing. Unfortunately, they weren't always smart. Northern Alliance soldiers, Canadian soldiers, American Special forces and ordinary Afghanistan citizens were killed by these devices.
* Conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missiles (CALCMs). More than 300 cruise missiles have been built over the last 10 years both with "blast/fragmentation" war heads, and penetrating warheads able to destroy "hardened or buried targets."
* V-22 Osprey. This combination helicopter and plane has a controversial history and an amazing ability to survive Directors of Defense who have wanted to kill it. The fact that the Marines want it, and now the Army's Special Operations Command, plus the presence of sub-contractors in around 40 states may help account for its survival. The program is said to cost $46 billion.
* Ground-based Midcourse missile defense program. Boeing is coordinating the development of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency layered missile defense programs. The 5 year contract comes to 6.4 billion, with the promise of almost another billion in bonuses. Because of failures in the integrated flight test program, not all of the bonus is likely to materialize.
* Wideband Gapfiller Satellite. This is a 1.3 billion dollar effort to build satellites with commercial technology, allowing it to be produced quickly, but according to some more susceptible to attack.
* Army Future Combat Systems. A multi billion dollar program to provide real time information about what is happening on the battlefield. This system is reported to be entering the design and development stage next year, based on the concept demonstrated in the Boeing Battlefield Integration Center (BIC) in Anaheim, California.
* In-flight Refueling Tankers. A 17 billion dollar program to provide 767s to the Air force allowing them to replace their aging tanker fleet.
* F/A-18 E/F fighters. The Super Hornet is the heart of Navy aviation. At the cost of about 40 million each, more than 500 planes are expected to be purchased by 2010.
* Comanche Helicopter. To be built with the Sirkorsky division of United Technologies, it has been under design since the early 1980s. Originally 1200 were to be purchased. the 2004 budget is reputed to cut the order to 650, at a cost of 40 million an aircraft. The total cost would be 48 billion.
Backgrounder: TECHNICAL TERMS AND ISSUES
This glossary of concepts, approaches and weapons is designed to provide brief insight into their status and their shortcomings. It is organized alphabetically. Additional contributions are welcome.
* Anti-Satellite Devices (ASATs). There is increasing talk about using ground based or space-based systems to protect our satellites and to attack those of other countries. Among the various flavors: bodyguard satellites that would defend ours; kinetic energy ASATs that could be launched; and space mines that couldbe moved into the proximity of enemy satellites and activated in a time of war.
* Boost-phase Missile Defense. This is a very different approach than the Space Based National Missile Defense that the U.S. government has pursued since 1996. The Boost Phase approach attempts to destroy a missile while it is still in the initial boost phase. Fired from an off shore ship or near-by country, the interceptor would strive to track the booster rocket and destroy it within minutes of it being launched. There would be no need to find the warhead in space and destroy it, rather than a decoy. Among the shortcoming of this approach is the need to make a very early detection of the ICBM launch, to make a very fast decision to fire the interceptor and be relatively close to the launch site. The strategy would not work easily with large countries like China or Russia given their ability to move launch site.
* Decoys. These are designed to confuse the missile defense system so that it can not identify and destroy a warhead. Many believe that the Pentagon has failed to appreciate how easily decoys can have their shapes and surfaces adjusted, thereby outwitting the kill vehicle. One suggested possible approach, for example, would be to use balloons for decoys, and to place the actual warhead in one of the balloons. The Missile Defense Agency and its predecessors have been charged with testing scenarios that have only easily identified decoys. There is little evidence to date that a foolproof way can be developed to distinguish warheads from sophisticated decoys.
* Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle. This is the device that is made by Ratheon, and launched into space by a Boeing rocket. It is supposed to identify the enemy warhead, as opposed to decoys, approach, and then destroy it by impact. Infrared sensors on the kill vehicle are supposed to be able to distinguish the warhead from decoys by measuring fluctuations in brightness. MIT Professor Theodore Postol believes that the Pentagon has not been forthright about the results of tests held to date. (see Why Missile Defense Won't Work, MIT Technology Review, April 2002
* Ground Based Radar. This radar is supposed to pick up the attack missiles when they rise above the horizon, three minutes or so after the missile engines have shut down. Depending upon the radar accuracy, it may be able to detect the upper stage of the rocket, the war heads and the decoys. The goal is to be able to launch the interceptors within 10 minutes of the missile attack; however, the radar is not able to steer the kill vehicle at the end.
* Infrared Early Warning Satellites. These satellites are intended to detect the exhaust of a missile 30 to 60 seconds after it has been fired from the ground. They can track only until the missile engine shuts off, typically 200 or 300 kilometers in altitude.The missile is then supposed to be picked up by the ground radar.
* Multi-layered Defense. This is the concept of trying to hit an attacking missile early in the boost phase, as well asonce the warhead has gotten into space.
* Strategic Defense Initiative. President Ronald Regan's original effort to defend against ballistic missiles. Known by most as "star wars."
* UAV. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles such as the RQ-1 Predator or the Global Hawk. Sen, Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii and recent chair of the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services has urged the Bush Administration to restrict exports to other nations. (David Isenberg)
Backgrounder: KEEPING SPACE OPEN AND FREE - IMPORTANT DATES TO KNOW
Trying to stay current with the efforts of the Bush Administration to build weapons in space, is fast paced work. Here are some of the key dates in the history of what many view as folly.
Most of this information is taken the New York Times, the St.Louis Post Dispatch and from books like Weapons in Space by Karl Grossman, Seven Stories Press in association with Open Media, New York, New York, 2001.
* 2002 - The House of Representatives (409 - 14) and the US Senate(93 - 1) approved a $355 billion defense spending bill for FY 2003 in October of 2002. The bill increases defense spending by $34.4 billion over theprevious year. It contains most of the $7.4 billion for missile defense systems, as requested by President Bush.
* 2002 - The Congressional Budget Office released a study in February projecting the costs of a layered defense through 2025. As reported in the New York Times, a system of ground based missile interceptors would cost $26 to $74 billion (through 2015); a system of missile interceptors launched from ships would cost between $50 and $64 billion (through 2015); and a space based laser system would cost between $82 and 100 billion (through 2025).
* 2002 - A space policy review is initiated by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
* 2002 - Undersecretary of the Air Force and Director of the National Reconnaissance Office is quoted (March 6, 2002) as saying "I believe that weapons will go into space. It is a question oftime. And we need to be at the forefront of that."
* 2001 - Release of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) (October1, 2001) identifies "exploiting space for military purposes" to be one of the Administrations key objectives.
* 2001 - Release of a Transformational Study Report (April 27, 2001) to the Secretary of Defense from an independent panel. Recommendationis made for things like offensive and defensive micro-satellitesto insure "space dominance."
* 2000 - Resolution entitled Prevention of An Arms Race into OuterSpace was approved in the UN General Assembly on November 20th. The votewas 163 nations in favor, with the U.S., Israel, and Micronesia abstaining.
* 2000 - Alpha high energy laser tested for 22nd time (April) by builder TRW. In December, a space based laser project is authorized at the NASA Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.
* 2000 - Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War published by Frances FitzGerald.
* 1999 - UN Conference on Disarmament held in Geneva in January; a seminar on The Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space was organized by the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom in March; in November, a resolution entitled Prevention of An Arms Race in Outer Space was approved by 160 nations in the UN General Assembly. The United States and Israel abstained.
* 1998 - The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, also known as the Rumsfeld Commission, reverses previous intelligence findings that the United States is not inimminent danger of ballistic missiles. The Commission worries about the capability and intent of rogue states. The report argues that there is no "blanket prohibition" ininternational law on "placing or using weapons in space."
* 1998 - A Long Range Plan is published by the U.S. Space Command. Developed with help from about 75 corporations, this report outlines plans for "control of space" and "full spectrum dominance."
* 1997 - Guardians of the High Frontier. Document issued by the U.S. Space Command that explains that they are committed to "the control and exploitation of space."
* 1996 - Vision for 2020. Document published by the U.S. Space Command that envisions "dominating the space dimension of militaryoperations to protect US interests and investments."
* 1996 - General Joseph Ashby is quoted in Aviation Week and Space Technology that "we're going to fight in space, fight from space and fight into space."
* 1967 - Outer Space Treaty is adopted. The United State plays a leadership role in its development
Backgrounder: U.S. ADMINISTRATION POLICY
On December 18, 2002, President Bush announced his intent to have ground based interceptors, sea-based interceptors, additional Patriot (PAC-3) units and sensors based on land, at sea and in space beginning in 2004 . The plan calls for 16 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, Alaska; 4 interceptors at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, and 20 sea-based interceptors on Navy Aegis ships.
This announcement comes as no suprise to those who have followed the thoughts of first candidate Bush and then President Bush. The current administration, and many in the Pentagon, clearly believe that the United States needs to aggressively develop and deploy such weapons, even if they don't necessarily work.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch (December 18, 2002) as follows: "I like the idea of putting something in the ground and in the sea and getting comfortable with it. Every program doesn't arrive fully developed. It will evolve over time." So much for the idea of making sure something works in advance.
Theresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information is one of many serious critics of the Bush policy on missile defense(."The general failure of the current administration to consider space weaponization from a broad policy perspective, and the deliberate shunning of arms control options, are both serious mistakes. There are a multitude of reasons to believe that the advent of weapons in space might actually undermine not only US security, but also global stability. Conversely there is strong reason to believe that international arms control agreements could not only enhance international security, but also protect the edge the United States now enjoys in space."